- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 13:55:51 -0400
- To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 05/19/2016 05:51 PM, Shane Stephens wrote: > >> This seems very counter-intuitive to me. I would not expect >> the coordinate system of translate/rotate/scale/transform >> to be affected by motion at all. The goal is for these all >> to behave as if they were independent right? But with this >> ordering they're not. > > I'm not sure that is a goal. Would you expect motion rotation > to affect transforms? Or transforms to affect motion? You have > to pick one. I think translate/scale/etc. should act the same > as the transform property, and we can't split that up to insert > motion components. I would expect them to be independent. I don't expect 'rotate' to affect motion, nor motion to affect 'rotate'. I also don't expect 'transform' to be affected by any of these, it should apply on top as a final operation. > Actually, based on your reactions here I'm leaning towards us > adding a full motion transform function. There isn't a perfect > ordering of transform and motion components where everything > always works as expected but at least that way more advanced > users can select an order. While maybe adding a motion transform function is *also* a good idea, I don't think it's a good substitute for independent properties. Which is why we're introducing translate/rotate/etc. I'm pretty sure the expectation is that these operations are all independent, unless stacked within the 'transform' property itself. >> What if you did >> >> apply translate >> apply motion >> apply rotate >> apply scale >> apply transform >> >> ? > > This would keep translate components in the global coordinate > system but then > translate: 100px; > and > transform: translate(100px); > would sometimes act differently to each other, which is weird. Agreed that's weird. They should be the same. >> p.s. Please either use plaintext email on www-style, or >> successfully harass the Gmail team to fix b/19483003 ? > > Ah, sorry :( I think that whatever messed up happened because I > manually quoted an email to merge two replies. I won't do that > again. Unfortunately inbox has no plain text option yet. No, that is not the problem. You are not doing anything wrong. :) The problem is that Gmail's email output HTML doesn't correctly mark up quotations. (See bug above, which Gmail so far refuses to fix because, I dunno. I keep having to fix up your quotations when I reply because they are--from what I've been told by proxy-- adamant about not fixing this stupidly trivial bug.) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 17:56:44 UTC